Posted on 12/09/2003 4:16:55 AM PST by Ispy4u
Under the strain of command in a dangerous situation, Lt. Col. Allen West committed a serious error in judgment. And in a military environment, such errors by a commanding officer cannot go unpunished.
Informed on Aug. 20 that an Iraqi policeman might have information about potential attacks on West and his troops, the colonel invited soldiers under his command to beat the suspect as West looked on. When that did not produce the desired effect, West threatened the prisoner, first firing a pistol into the air, then holding the pistol to the policeman's head and firing a shot into the ground nearby.
Not surprisingly, the terrified suspect then began babbling information. As is often the case when such crude techniques are used, it later proved impossible to verify whether that information was accurate or whether it had been invented by the suspect in a desperate attempt to save his life.
Nor was it clear that the suspect was guilty. As U.S. intelligence officers testified in a preliminary hearing in the case, Iraqis will often finger an innocent person to American troops as a way to wreak personal revenge on each other.
Unfortunately for West, there is no question whatsoever about his own behavior in the case, or that it violated U.S. Army regulations. After complaints were filed by other soldiers, the colonel was relieved of command and is awaiting word whether he will be court-martialed on charges of aggravated assault and communicating a threat. If found guilty, the well-respected officer could be sentenced to up to eight years in prison.
It is hard not to feel sympathy for West, and almost impossible to sit in judgment of him from afar. "If it's the lives of my men and their safety," he said in his preliminary hearing, "I'd go through hell with a gasoline can." His case has even drawn congressional interest, with two U.S. senators suggesting that West deserves to be commended for his actions, not prosecuted. And certainly, a prison term does seem an unduly harsh punishment.
It is even more difficult to condemn West for violating the standards of the Geneva Convention for warfare and occupation when more senior U.S. officials are themselves treating those rules as inconvenient guidelines that can be ignored at will. The hundreds of prisoners captured in Afghanistan and held under harsh conditions by the United States in Guantanamo Bay, for example, have been ruled ineligible for protection under the Geneva Convention because they are supposedly "enemy combatants" rather than prisoners of war.
That effort to redefine the problem calls to mind the argument used by the North Vietnamese more than 30 years ago to justify their cruel treatment of captured American aviators. John McCain and others in the Hanoi Hilton were not prisoners of war, we were told, but war criminals who deserved what they got. In other words, it is always easy to find a justification if you want one badly enough.
It is also true that in Iraq, we are engaged in a bitter struggle with people who do not recognize such distinctions. As the West case illustrates, it is tempting to then fight the battle on their terms, and in rare cases it may indeed be necessary to do so.
But those and other distinctions are part of why we're fighting. We believe such rules are important to civilized life; our opponents do not. In the eyes of the Iraqis, it is hard to distinguish ourselves from the previous regime if we ourselves do not attempt to live by the rules we claim to uphold. The suspect threatened by West, for example, was a policeman, and hundreds of U.S. personnel are trying hard every day to convince Iraqi policemen that such tactics are simply unacceptable.
For military reasons, punishing West in some way is mandatory. The tactics that he used that day contradict the values this country is supposed to be defending. Allowing an officer of his rank to evade consequences for such behavior would send an unmistakable signal up and down the ranks and greatly erode the discipline our soldiers rely upon in tough situations.
Certainly, the pressures of combat help explain his mistake. They do not excuse it.
Jay Bookman is the deputy editorial page editor.
If you have to ask.....
It's quite simple, we are a tool, use us to fix something and the thing works, then great. Use us and we break something we shouldn't then we are a damn sorry tool.
Resign and no retirement? I wouldn't have taken it. Would you?
Non-judicial punishment, IMO, would have been the way to go.
It could have been more than an a$$ chewing and discipline would have been maintained.
Prisoner handling may well be the most universally identical subject among our armed services. No one has an excuse for mistreating a prisoner.
If you don't want to handle prisoners properly, don't take them, there are multitudes of ways to conduct a legal military operation against enemies that will almost certainly result in their deaths.
I tried to skim through this without commenting because I knew I'd get worked up . . . but your "legalese" arguments for the hell that is war-time just wouldn't let me pass.
You said in an earlier post that you wanted someone to prove to you that West's actions "Saved American lives." Or something similar to that. I'll get to that in a minute . . . let me set the table first.
My nephew's on the front lines over there . . . in the middle of a vicious, violent, indescribable inferno that us debaters sitting safely and cozily on our tushes over here call simply WAR . . . where telling friend from foe is often-times only certain when they raise an AK-47 from under a hidden jacket or milliseconds before they push the button or pull the pin on an explosive charge.
Hidden bombs and car bombs and suicide bombs and thrown bombs and rocketed bombs can kill and maim at any time . . . and you want us to play nice?
Young children, geriatric, toothless grandmothers, and white-robed Mullah-wannabes have been known to kill and maim GI's without batting an eye . . . and you say we have no "excuse for mistreating ANY prisoner?"
What if I caught Saddam with an AK-47 in his hands, two pounds of C-4 in his back pockets, and wearing a string of GI dogtags as a necklace WHILE he was reading a map in ARABIC that even dumb 'ol me could tell was obviously an impending trap where my brother soldiers would be killed? Would you want me to offer him a cup of tea? Or a doughnut? Or call Johnny Cochran to come on over before I interrogated him to keep me from hurting his feelings?
I know, I know. We're better than they are. We have to set a standard. Bullshit! The ones who say that have nothing to lose. Let your son or daughter be exposed to those nasty sonsabitches, knowing your child has to play by Marquis of Queensbury Rules while they can and will behead you with a pocketknife and drag your lifeless body through the streets like it was a trophy awarded in Little League. You put something at risk . . . then come back here and if you still want to debate the finer points about tactics during peacetime and war, we can do it.
Do I think our soldiers should just slaughter every prisoner we capture? Of course not. But they're there, I'm not. I'm guessing them and I have the same belief system -- within reason anyway. Most Americans know it's not okey-doke to go out and slaughter people, okay? Whether they're innocent or not. Anyway, since they're there with access to current information and actions, since the American people have entrusted them to do a job -- to protect our asses, and since most Americans inherently know right from wrong . . . I don't have the right to second guess their tactics. And neither do you. Not in the heat of battle. Not from over here. Not filtering facts and suppositions through my safe-as-a-bug-in-a-rug filters while they're facing the harsh realities of warfare.
I'm old enough to remember how we lost the Vietnam War. I don't doubt your sincerity for a minute. But this is just how our defeat started then. We started second-guessing every move made by our soldiers. Then the media picked up the call. Then the politicians joined the band. Then the tree-huggers and Puff the Magic Dragon-ers and Free Lovers started toking and protesting and chanting Peace! Not War! when they could spell neither.
What's the hurry? West didn't kill anyone. West didn't hurt anyone. Why can't we win this war, then prosecute the boogie men? There are so many of us who choose to believe our enemies before we believe our soldiers. I just don't understand that MO.
Wars aren't won by Marquis of Queensbury Rules. Legalese has never saved one soldier's life.
Can anyone prove that West's actions "Saved American Lives?" Maybe not. But can I prove that West's actions "POTENTIALLY Saved American Lives?" Yes! Absolutely! How? I'll ask Colonel West. He's a colonel in my Army. He's fighting and willing to die so that I might rest my head in tranquil peace tonight. I trust Colonel West. I believe in Colonel West.
And if he lies to me, there'll be hell to pay when the war is over. But not in the heat of battle. Not in the fog of war. He's there, I'm not. Go get 'em guys! Kick ass and take the names later!
I have done many things in my life where I was prepared to take the consequences of my unlawful actions.
As for your "Spoken like a true Zero Tolerance disciple" you don't know a damn thing about me.
Pure BS.
There is no doubt that a Lt. Ispy4u would be fragged within a week of assuming command!
Personally, I think he ought to be "Zotted" forthwith. Oh, and perhaps sent to have a short dialogue with Lt Col West.
More pointless hyperbole to cover up the fact that you can't answer the question.
It is clear to me that you are just a detractor. You claim to be in the service but I don't believe you. If, on the off chance that I am wrong, and you are actually in the service, please resign your commission. I don't want someone like you defending our nation with words rather than might. If you think your (dim)wit is so powerful use it somewhere else. It won't save the future of America and it won't stop bullets.
Wow. Good rebuttal. I'm certainly impressed.
\Hy*per"bo*le\, n. [L., fr. Gr?, prop., an overshooting, excess, fr. Gr. ? to throw over or beyond; "ype`r over + ? to throw. See Hyper-, Parable, and cf. Hyperbola.] (Rhet.) A figure of speech in which the expression is an evident exaggeration of the meaning intended to be conveyed, or by which things are represented as much greater or less, better or worse, than they really are; a statement exaggerated fancifully, through excitement, or for effect.
Our common forms of compliment are almost all of them extravagant hyperboles. --Blair.
Your arguements come under the bold.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.